• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

16:9 vs 16:10

albovin said:
16:10 vs 16:9 issues are discussed here.
Click to expand...

I hope you had a point to posting that. In the other thread you mentioned not creating a new thread just to get a question answered and use search, which you linked this thread, then you go and post basically the title here. Why?
 
albovin said:
ZV3001
As you see from this thread, the vertical resolution defines the rank.
You are right about "the obvious".
Less obvious factor (temporary though) is that 1920x1080 monitors are low end in general and utilize low quality panels (TN).
1920x1200 monitors give you variety of options.
Click to expand...

Please define what is considered "low end" for you. Because what's low end to you can be very high end to others and wise versa. I just got myself a 1920x1080 21.6 inch Asus monitor and it is a very high quality monitor FOR THE PRICE.

I have to admit that it "feels" like this monitor is a lot smaller than it should be because in the mind of many PC users(including myself) a bigger monitor is one that is actually vertically AND horizontally bigger. Apparently, these 19x10 monitors are ONLY bigger horizontally and NOT vertically. At least not much. I don't see any size difference, vertically whatsoever when compared to my 17 inch ViewSonic!!! Needless to say, I feel disappointed and cheated out of the actual size for my money. Now when I dealt with cons, let's talk about the pros:

1)On the other hand, what the heck am I complaining about here?! It is not like it's possible to get another monitor that can at least match this one for the same price! I dare anyone here to find a 2ms monitor that is just as good for the same exact price of $200 when you factor in the shipping, and the price of the DVI cable that is usually not included at least when it comes to many BenQ's and LGs.

2)What this monitor lacks in vertical space it totally compensates in horizontal space. So while it may be a little less comfortable to scroll through webpages, it's very convenient and useful to open two application windows side by side. I am well aware of the fact that it is also possible with 16x10 and 19x12 monitors but when it comes to 19x10 there's yet even more space to do this. And yet again, there's simply no 16x10 or 19x12 monitors in the same league at the same price, so there's just nothing to compare to. The nearest competition like the BenQ E2200HD is at least $60-80 more.


So in the end, as it was already stated before me, it's all about what is more comfortable/important for people. Many want increased vertical space, but some will like the increased horizontal space. Overall, I'd say that 16x10 and 19x12 monitors are probably "better" for overall PC only use. Part of the reason for this, is that they "feel" bigger, and it doesn't really matter if they actually are. But these new 19x10 monitors totally beat the competition when you factor in the price and the added features and are very much worth getting unless you are willing to spend significantly more money for something better.
 
BenQ G2400WD or the Dell 2408WFP?

Well, I was wondering, what would be better in terms of overall performance and quality? I'm well aware that the G2400WD is a TN and the 2408WFP is a S-PVA & they are both 16:10 aspect ratio'd monitors. Although, what places me off the G2400WD is the basic ergonomics & the aesthetics. The Dell on the other hand is the opposite, I prefer the aesthetics and the ergonomics on the Dell. Although, the input lag is what concerns me. Despite the price of the Dell 2408WFP of which shouldn't and doesn't really matter to me. What would YOU choose or recommend the best and most sufficient for me? Should I wait; maybe for the next revision of the Dell 2408WFP?

Well, I personally prefer myself as a hardcore gamer, I play very-fast-paced games (FPS; of course). I wouldn't like to see that input lag provides me disadvantages when gaming, but seriously. Is this how input lag works? Well, the enemy has already seen me before-hand by 30~40ms and then finally I'm able to see him after the 30~40ms, is that how input lag works or something? If not or if so, what is responsiveness then? If I shoot a gun, there would be delay or something?

Although, I also prefer accurate colors & better quality, you know? It's just the input lag & a bit higher response times than the G2400WD (and possibly other TN panels). Well, and I also like lots of monitor adjustments, I know this could be done by adding a VESA mount to the G2400WD, but I don't feel that as necessary as of now. Maybe later; but I prefer a mount that has the features already. I don't know now actually, what would you recommend? Or what would you get as of now? I'm literally stuck.
 
ibex333 said:
2)What this monitor lacks in vertical space it totally compensates in horizontal space. So while it may be a little less comfortable to scroll through webpages, it's very convenient and useful to open two application windows side by side. I am well aware of the fact that it is also possible with 16x10 and 19x12 monitors but when it comes to 19x10 there's yet even more space to do this. And yet again, there's simply no 16x10 or 19x12 monitors in the same league at the same price, so there's just nothing to compare to. The nearest competition like the BenQ E2200HD is at least $60-80 more.
Click to expand...

Your argument makes no sense at all.

You're trying to tell me that a 1920x1080 monitor has more horizontal space than a 1920x1200 monitor, which has the same horizontal resolution?

Stop falling for visual illusions. Everyone obsessed with 16:9 on a PC just gets fewer pixels - nothing more, nothing less.

Most panels are probably mass produced from the same TFT sheets as the 16:10 monitors so the pixel pitch, spacing and PIXEL aspect ratio (is the pixel itself square or not) is probably all the same. Again, this just means fewer pixels.

I'd rather see small black bars above and below a 16:9 movie than lose the pixel space for everything else a PC is used for. I simply don't understand the obsession with having fewer pixels to have a screen that appears wider, but actually isn't, and isn't any more useful.
 
Surly73 said:
Everyone obsessed with 16:9 on a PC just gets fewer pixels - nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...

Absolutely true.
The only difference is in visual size (panel quality aside).
So what matters is whether the screen is physically wide enough and has enough vertical pixels to suit the user.

I'm on a 16:9 1080p TV and am satisfied on both counts.
Its a personal thing.
I wouldnt moan having a 19:10 TV (if they exist?) but I dont feel the need to change.
 
Nenu said:
Absolutely true.
The only difference is in visual size (panel quality aside).
So what matters is whether the screen is physically wide enough and has enough vertical pixels to suit the user.

I'm on a 16:9 1080p TV and am satisfied on both counts.
Its a personal thing.
I wouldnt moan having a 19:10 TV (if they exist?) but I dont feel the need to change.
Click to expand...

TVs are not really part of this discussion. All widescreen TV content is 16:9 (or wider) and all equipment designed to display content on TVs (Blu-ray, DVD, HD tuner boxes, PVRs) almost all output 16:9 strictly. Choosing to put your PC on a TV because it is a media center device makes it a TV content display appliance. Choosing to put your PC on a TV because you want a 50"-60" display is also a different situation - Best Buy doesn't have 60" 16:10 displays even if you wanted one.

16:9 displays make sense hanging on the living room wall and they are by far the standard screen aspect ratio for home entertainment. On a PC, the point of searching out exotic 24" and smaller monitors in 16:9 format just to have fewer pixels for standard PC tasks, or something thinking that the same number of horizontal pixels (1920) somehow results in more usable, "wider" space in 16:9 is just crazy.

60" 16:10 TVs are hard to find because the TV content standard is 16:9, and no one wants to buy one.

22" 16:9 PC monitors are hard to find because the computer standard, although less tied to content - more to "desktop space", is 16:10, and no one wants to buy one. And, for a PC, I simply don't see the point.
 
Well excuse me for having an opinion, clearly yours is the only one that matters.
I spose I'm not allowed to use my PC on a 16:9 TV.
I'm done here, have your own exclusive pointless argument.
 
I for one have been waiting for 1920x1080 monitors before buying one because i have my PC in the living room right next to the Main TV of the house and the main surround sound. I wasn't even about to go with a 1920x1200 resolution because it would mean i would have to be constantly switching resolutions which was the whole reason i was looking to upgrade.

The main TV is an 52" xbr4 and the monitor i bought was the asus 24" with the webcam.

PC games support was soo much more supportive to 1920x1080 resolution than i expected.

I only had 1 game that didn't support it natively.

I do this because there are the following 4 senario's that are constantly happening at any given time @ my house.

1. I am playing a video game/surfing the internet on my computer while watching a sporting event or something else on the main TV.
2. Me and some buddies of mine are playing 2v2 sports game on the PC and even with the 52" sony it's nice to have 2 monitors.
3. Friend of mine is playing a role playing game that i like to peek in on every now and then to see what's happening, so on commericals of whatever i am watching i will just switch inputs real quick and watch the game for a bit.
4. Just got a new movie and everyone wants to watch it (now i don't have to make any changes to the resolution or dual monitors, just double click the movie and switch inputs on the entertainment center.

Now with all those advantages over having dual resolutions to worry about are those extra pixels on a 1920x1200 monitor really worth it? Hell no at least not for me.

Now I understand that not everyone has an HDTV for a second monitor.

But you still have these advantages.
Native resolution and aspect ratio for xbox360 and ps3 consoles (no black bars)

For me i don't see why 16:10 was ever done when 1080p is obviously the industry standard for the future.
 
Bigjohns97 said:
I for one have been waiting for 1920x1080 monitors before buying one because i have my PC in the living room right next to the Main TV of the house and the main surround sound. I wasn't even about to go with a 1920x1200 resolution because it would mean i would have to be constantly switching resolutions which was the whole reason i was looking to upgrade.
Click to expand...

Or, if you have your reasons, you could leave your PC in 1080 mode and still buy a standard 1200 line monitor giving you the choice of all product lines instead of a couple of niches.

I'm not sure I'd call switching resolutions a real drag. It took 5 seconds here to bounce to 1080 and back to 1200 and all my open windows and icons adapted just fine. (NVidia card on NEC2490 via DVI-D)

Now with all those advantages over having dual resolutions to worry about are those extra pixels on a 1920x1200 monitor really worth it? Hell no at least not for me.
Click to expand...

Again, you don't NEED to switch resolutions all over if you anticipate swinging output onto the larger screen. In this case you do display on a second 16:9 display frequently and its a matter of convenience for you to use 16:9 on your PC desktop. As I mentioned, it's different if you already HAVE a large 16:9 display and you want to display your PC on it. It a separate issue, and the one being debated in this thread, if 16:9 is somehow "superior" for PCs over 16:10, and why some people obsess over finding obscure 16:9 PC monitors.

But you still have these advantages.
Native resolution and aspect ratio for xbox360 and ps3 consoles (no black bars)

For me i don't see why 16:10 was ever done when 1080p is obviously the industry standard for the future.
Click to expand...

What industry is that? The *TV* industry. Why was 2.35:1 "done" when 16:9 was already "done"? Because it's for a specific purpose and the FILM INDUSTRY likes it.

As stated MANY times before: 16:10 was "done" for *PCs* because most PCs don't just play games and 16:10 allows two A4 or Letter sized documents to be displayed side by side for proofing etc... Since most of my time in front of a PC isn't shooting aliens or slaying dragons, I'd be pissed off to lose the extra pixels for all the useful work that needs to get done.

Further, why do you feel that a 16:10 display doesn't show native resolution or AR for consoles? It's not like the 16:10 display has to stretch or interpolate a 16:9 picture to fit. If you're displaying 16:9 you get some black bars. Pretend its a really thick bezel while you watch the movie.

I've found a lot of movies (like 2.35:1 and wider) are still letterboxed on 16:9 screens because they are anamorphic widescreen. Has this distorted the movie? No. Do I feel the need to find a weirdo anamorphic widescreen display so I don't have to stare at those unused pixels? No. (although some very wealthy people do) Would I want to give up the pixels used for 16:9 sometimes just because I have a lot of anamorphic widescreen titles? No. Leave the pixels there so I can have a standard 16:9 screen, and have the pixels available for use when required.

Same case for 16:10 on PCs. If we follow a standard we end up with less expensive goods and more choices due to economies of scale. Start pulling a Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD thing and no one gets anywhere.
 
I picked up a Samsung 2324BWX yesterday - 23", 2048 x 1152 resolution (16:9). It was kind of a random purchase ..but I thought the resolution was interesting for the monitor size. It has better usable vertical space than my previous 22" and of course more horizontal space than 1080p LCDs - very nice thus far. Just something to muddle the topic up a little more as I wasn't really considering a 16:9 based LCD before yesterday.
 
albovin said:
Low end means TN panel first of all. It means the lowest picture quality. It automatically means a budget sector where people want to save on a monitor (It does not necessarily means that those people are poor). To save on a monitor means to save on features (picture quality management, advanced video support, eye strain reducing technology..), ergonomics (height adjustment, pivot), equipment (connectivity, optionals), screen size and electronics.
Click to expand...

While you are mostly correct, I wouldn't put it in such terms. Some people simply don't need a higher picture quality and the added features. I could have coughed up $400 for a monitor, maybe even $500.. But I just couldn't justify spending so much money, given the fact that I don't do any serious work on my computer and I can spend the extra funds for a new CPU or a video card....
I also cant agree with you when you say that saving on a monitor means saving on features. Sometimes, (rarely) for a lower price you can get features only found in more expencive monitors. Such is the case with my recent acquisition.



Surly73 said:
Your argument makes no sense at all.

You're trying to tell me that a 1920x1080 monitor has more horizontal space than a 1920x1200 monitor, which has the same horizontal resolution?

Stop falling for visual illusions. Everyone obsessed with 16:9 on a PC just gets fewer pixels - nothing more, nothing less.

Most panels are probably mass produced from the same TFT sheets as the 16:10 monitors so the pixel pitch, spacing and PIXEL aspect ratio (is the pixel itself square or not) is probably all the same. Again, this just means fewer pixels.

I'd rather see small black bars above and below a 16:9 movie than lose the pixel space for everything else a PC is used for. I simply don't understand the obsession with having fewer pixels to have a screen that appears wider, but actually isn't, and isn't any more useful.
Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense if you read my post carefully. Isn't it obvious that I am comparing monitors of the same size? I'm talking from the standpoint of my 22" Asus here! Most monitors that are 1920x1200 are significantly bigger than most 1920x1080 when it comes to 24" and below - so what you are saying is moot point. I don't want to discuss bigger size monitors, and I never intended to. If you compare a 22" 19x10 and a 22" 16x10, the 19x10 will be bigger horizontally. That is what I was trying to say. I do agree that I probably should have been more specific.


Please don't assume things about me. I am not obsessed with anything and I'm not "falling" for anything. The main factor in my purchasing decision was that there are no 2ms monitors of decent quality and of the same size available for anywhere near $200. It's as simple as that. I was going to go for the 2ms 22" LG 227 (forgot what the exact model is) but the damn thing is $309+shipping+dvi cable!! Then I thought I'd go for BenQ E2200HD but it's at least $50more+shipping+dvi cable. There are a few other monitors out there that are very good choices, but they all flirt with $400 and often go way over. I guess what I'm really trying to say is this: You know how usually when you pay less for something you get a piece of crap? Well, this is not the case with the Asus vh226h. This is a quality product that performs very well and offers more than the competition for the money.

How do you know 19x10 monitors have less pixels? I have to look into that. If that is the case, how is it that games look so damn good on these monitors? How is it that despite the fact that this monitor indeed seems smaller, everything I use looks as good or better than on similar 16x10 monitor?

You say that most panels are probably mass produced from the same TFT sheets as the 16:10 monitors so the pixel pitch, spacing and PIXEL aspect ratio (is the pixel itself square or not) is probably all the same... you proceed to say that this means fewer pixels. The key words here are "probably". Again, you are assuming. I'm not saying you are wrong. What I'm saying is, it's your OPINION, not a fact. (unless someone can confirm, and make me feel like crap in the process) ;)
 
ibex333 said:
How do you know 19x10 monitors have less pixels? I have to look into that. If that is the case, how is it that games look so damn good on these monitors? How is it that despite the fact that this monitor indeed seems smaller, everything I use looks as good or better than on similar 16x10 monitor?

You say that most panels are probably mass produced from the same TFT sheets as the 16:10 monitors so the pixel pitch, spacing and PIXEL aspect ratio (is the pixel itself square or not) is probably all the same... you proceed to say that this means fewer pixels. The key words here are "probably". Again, you are assuming. I'm not saying you are wrong. What I'm saying is, it's your OPINION, not a fact. (unless someone can confirm, and make me feel like crap in the process) ;)
Click to expand...

Those numbers "1920" and "1080" and "1200" ARE the number of pixels - period. In our current digital domain, the number of pixels on the display match the number of pixels on the screen in native resolution, which is all that has been discussed in this thread.

A 1920x1080 screen in ANY SIZE will have fewer pixels than a 1920x1200 screen of ANY SIZE. Only the pixel size varies. Note that I am talking about a screen with that many pixels, not a 720p TV capable of "accepting" 1080 input, which is then scaled to fit the typical 768 row panel.

Even if I'm wrong about the TFT sheets, that doesn't alter the pixel count of each screen, or whether you can fit two useful web browsers beside each other (which needs pixels), it merely adds variance to the inch-sizing spec of the monitor. I didn't think this debate was about Pythagorean theorem, measuring diagonal lines, and whether a display was 22" or 21.6" because of the aspect ratio change. If the pixel aspect ratio is altered, you can make those 1920x1080 pixels into different "screen" aspect ratios. My TFT sheet comment is intended to indicate that the 16:9 and 16:10 debate is about displays with the same pixel "squareness" and only the pixel count determines the change in aspect ratio.
 
But I thought we were talking about 16:9 vs. 16:10, not vs 16:12?

You are right. A 1980x1200 monitor will have more pixels than a 1980x1080 monitor. But it will also be more expencive.

Again, I thought we were taking about 16x10 and 19x10 monitors in general, which is why I was trying to push that one is not necessarily "worse" than the other.

Basically to summarize, I believe that 1080p monitors can only really be "worse" when compared to higher res monitors. Otherwise it's only a matter of personal preference. Someone wants more vertical space and someone wants more horizontal space.
 
ibex333 said:
But I thought we were talking about 16:9 vs. 16:10, not vs 16:12?

You are right. A 1920x1200 monitor will have more pixels than a 1920x1080 monitor. But it will also be more expencive.

Again, I thought we were taking about 16x10 and 16x9 monitors in general, which is why I was trying to push that one is not necessarily "worse" than the other.

Basically to summarize, I believe that 1080p monitors can only really be "worse" when compared to higher res monitors. Otherwise it's only a matter of personal preference. Someone wants more vertical space and someone wants more horizontal space.
Click to expand...
Fixed.
 
So does anyone think that monitor manufacturers will end up abandoning 16:10 monitors like they already have with 4:3, and just produce 16:9 monitors?
 
delerious said:
So does anyone think that monitor manufacturers will end up abandoning 16:10 monitors like they already have with 4:3, and just produce 16:9 monitors?
Click to expand...

Yep, look at the BenQ website, majority of the monitors are 16:9 now and they are pushing them more than they are the older 16:10 ones.
 
I tried a few 16:9 monitors but could not get past the fact they are not able to properly display 4:3/5:4 @ 75hz. I play a few older games (warsow, quake3, etc) that I run at those settings so...

For now I prefer 16:10, though 16:9 does look nice for videos and certain games. People will have to accept the fact that most of the newer monitors coming out will start to adhere to the tv standard of 16:9. I hope OLED or some other form of monitor tech comes and puts an end to all the LCD short comings, ie: response time, input latency, native res, black levels, ghosting/blurring, etc.
 
delerious said:
So does anyone think that monitor manufacturers will end up abandoning 16:10 monitors like they already have with 4:3, and just produce 16:9 monitors?
Click to expand...

I hope not. Again, 16:10 is for computing hardware. I like being able to watch, or edit, a 16:9 video with tool palettes or status displays above and below. Ditto for 3:2 format photos, side-by-side letter sized documents etc...

If all displays went 16:9, you'd simply lose pixels on a typical computer screen from 1200 lines to 1080 lines. If anything I need more space, not less.
 
Nenu said:
16:10 is best for browsing the web but you lose about 10% framerate in games compared to 16:9
Click to expand...


Since the average human eyeball is not capable of catching more than 30FPS I have to wonder just how many FPS does one really need??
 
Surly73 said:
I hope not. Again, 16:10 is for computing hardware. I like being able to watch, or edit, a 16:9 video with tool palettes or status displays above and below. Ditto for 3:2 format photos, side-by-side letter sized documents etc...

If all displays went 16:9, you'd simply lose pixels on a typical computer screen from 1200 lines to 1080 lines. If anything I need more space, not less.
Click to expand...



I also hope the lcd makers are looking, MORE VERTICAL HEIGHT NOT LESS!! :D
 
Biges said:
16:9 monitors are just a new way how to make more money off the customers - "Lookie here, we have new HD 16:9 monitors for you, very cold!" But they are simply smaller, i.e. less pixels for the same diagonal size, so manufacturers save some money. For 16:9 gaming they may be better, bot for everything else 16:10 is a way to go (don't tell me there are people who use a monitor only for movies... and some movies or series are still 4:3).
Click to expand...



That would seem a logical ploy by the lcd makers just to save money, and then make people think theyve been done a favor when in fact theyre just getting less.
 
I sure changed my tune 2 months later, hah. Glad I upgraded from the 22" 1680x1050 to a 24" 1080p LCD.

And I'm surprised there's still people out there believing the "human eye can only see ~30fps" stuff?!
 
brumwald said:
First hit on google:
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
Not that I'm sure it is 100% correct but should be enough to tell you that you can see more than 30 FPS.
Click to expand...

Great link (and advice :D, nothing like making the effort).
My personal experience is that around 85Hz things start to look very smooth but its still jerky when spinning round fast in game.
120Hz cures that for me, the last time I tested this was a few years back on a CRT.
 
Go figure that they're moving computer monitors to 16:9 when 16:10 is now fairly commonplace. I'm sure there are a few games that won't support 16:9 - possibly even console ports - simply because the developer assumed the use of 'standard' resolutions.

Oh well, at least it won't be as bad as the migration from standard to widescreen in terms of support.
 
SockMan! said:
Go figure that they're moving computer monitors to 16:9 when 16:10 is now fairly commonplace. I'm sure there are a few games that won't support 16:9 - possibly even console ports - simply because the developer assumed the use of 'standard' resolutions.

Oh well, at least it won't be as bad as the migration from standard to widescreen in terms of support.
Click to expand...

Consoles do support 16:9 aspect ratios (in fact they are most commonly used at 16:9), so I'm not quite sure I see why a console port in particular wouldn't support 16:9 on a PC.
 
conghelach said:
No? well by all means man dont keep us in suspense please explain..........
Click to expand...
Drop into any Source engine game on decent hardware. In the console, type "max_fps 30", without the quotes. Play around for a bit. Then, in the console, type "max_fps 300" and play around some more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top